sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dennis Tito, Outer Space Treaty, Private spaceflight

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications Law, College of

2006

Space for Tourism? Legal Aspects of Private for Tourist Purposes

Frans G. von der Dunk University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw

Part of the Air and Commons von der Dunk, Frans G., "Space for Tourism? Legal Aspects of for ouristT Purposes" (2006). Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. 26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/26

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. von der Dunk in Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of (2006), pages 18-28. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Copyright 2006, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission.

SPACE FOR TOURISM? Legal Aspects of Private Spaceflight for Tourist Purposes

Frans G. von der Dunk International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden - The [email protected]

Abstract science fiction to an impending commercial business. If the flight of It is barely five years ago since the first Mr. Tito in 2001 could still be space tourist proper, Mr. , considered an exotic multi-millionaire’s made his much-publicised 20 million- stunt, already three years later the X- dollar flight to the ISS. And now, prize changed such perceptions purportedly thousands of prospective dramatically. Twice within a few weeks customers are lining up with such in that October of 2004 did a privately- nascent companies as Sir Richard financed craft, using relatively simple Branson's , for a but rather revolutionary technology, 200,000-dollar, few-minute flight into reach an altitude of over 100 km, the the nearest part of outer space. In other unofficial boundary of outer space. The words: it looks like is technology has immediately been here to stay. picked up by Virgin Galactic, which This obviously raises a number of key about half a year ago already had some legal issues, stretching from proper 43,000 bookings and down-payments to application of such international space the tune of 13 million US$ for trips to as the Liability and be offered as of 2008.1 Registration Conventions to national While the US has reacted legal issues pertaining to liabilities, by enunciating a specific Act to deal licensing and certification, and civil with this latest development,2 this Act and criminal jurisdiction and control. was only a temporary one.3 Moreover, The present paper seeks to offer an it is clear that space tourism will also overview of some of these, the most generate substantial legal issues beyond salient legal issues as they are on the the borders and jurisdiction of the table right now, keeping in mind the – already in the case of need to maintain a fair balance between Virgin Galactic it should be noted that the interests of private enterprise and of this concerns a UK company. the public at large – nationally as well The present paper offers a summary as internationally – respectively. overview of some of the most salient legal issues as they play out both at an international and at a national level. 1. Introduction

Over the span of just a handful of years, 2. International level space tourism (for the moment to be defined as “flights into outer space of 2.1. Introductory remark humans for their own pleasure and Starting at the international level – as excitement”) has been transformed should be the case, bearing in mind the from a notion being little more than fundamentally international character

Copyright©2006 by Frans G. von der Dunk. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. of outer space as an area4 – it is In view of that fact of , it was immediate obvious that for simply not very likely the pure pleasure purposes were never as would even get the chance to undertake such envisaged by the drafters of the any deliberate action in violation of key space treaties. domestic laws potentially triggering the receiving state’s jurisdiction and, thus, 2.2. The Outer Space the question of any immunities. The was essentially The relevant provisions were, of focused on two reasons for conducting course, drafted keeping in mind humans any, including manned, spaceflight: going into space as ‘professionals’, that military/political ones (where it tried to is trained and paid by their respective minimise the risks of space becoming a (or exceptionally by an battleground) and scientific ones intergovernmental organisation, read (where it tried to establish and protect ESA) to go into outer space. Hence, it the freedom to investigate, explore and was precisely the fundamental non- even use outer space).5 With a view to professional nature of space tourists space tourism, the major conclusion too which raised the issue in many minds be drawn from the Outer Space Treaty of whether they should be considered therefore is: as long as no specific rules and hence enjoy the status of prohibit or condition (certain forms of) the relevant provisions. space tourism, the freedom of use of The ‘follow-up’ treaties to the Outer outer space as point of departure allows Space Treaty equally proceeded on that space tourism as part of such use, even basis, although in view of the more if nowhere specifically mentioned. explicit and concrete character of most The only more directly relevant of their articles the question whether reference to the current issue is offered individual articles would impose by Article V, which had been drafted to relevant conditions on space tourist ensure that astronauts (and cosmonauts activities became much more acute. and taikonauts) would be treated in conformity with certain standards – as 2.3. The mainly expressed by the concept of This firstly concerned the Rescue “envoys of mankind”. That concept had Agreement6, which elaborated Article never been defined any further, V of the Outer Space Treaty. The although it was generally considered Rescue Agreement followed the latter’s not to equate in law with an ‘envoy’ in exclusive focus on professional the terrestrial, diplomatic sense of the astronauts and even seemed to word. Formally, no diplomatic elaborate it, by referring throughout to immunities were offered to an astronaut “personnel of a ” as enjoying stranded in a foreign country. Under the rights of being assisted and safely Article V, the duties of the ‘receiving and promptly returned as spelled out by state’ had been ‘limited’ to assistance the Agreement.7 Not entering into the as well as prompt and safe return to his discussion here of the extent to which ‘sending’ state; they did not provide for the “personnel of a spacecraft” of the any formal entitlement of the astronaut Rescue Agreement would equate with to immunity from jurisdiction. To be the “astronauts” of Article V of the sure, the astronaut’s presence within a Outer Space Treaty, it remains obvious foreign jurisdiction was essentially of that as such space tourists would seem an emergency and – as a consequence – to fall outside of that category. supposedly rather temporary character.

19 Apparently, there is considerable human beings that have so far entered hesitation to accept this conclusion into outer space. The only major outright, as it may seem to deny space difference, certainly from a legal tourists the benefits of Articles 1 perspective, is that the latter are in the through 4 in particular of the Rescue service of governments or an Agreement, and efforts are made to intergovernmental organisation, the stretch the concepts of ‘personnel of a former in the service of private spacecraft’ and ‘astronaut’ so as to commercial companies. include, after all, any human being in In this case, therefore, it would make outer space including space tourists. sense to equate space tourist vehicle This would be a fallacy, however, crew, certainly the flight deck crew but inasmuch as general humanitarian possibly also any service e crew on duties to assist human beings in distress board, to “personnel of a spacecraft”, do not depend on those Articles; they hence endowing them with the rights derive – apart from moral and ethical enunciated by the Rescue Agreement. considerations – from customary and in many cases also codified general 2.4. The Liability Convention international law. It is not necessary for Another example of outer space treaty- those general humanitarian purposes to law potentially relevant for the present interpret these Articles as extending to situation would concern the Liability space tourists as well. Convention,8 since the obvious risk On the contrary, should space tourists exists that through the doings of a space be allowed to enjoy in particular the tourist damage falling within its scope rights to safe and prompt return might result. As a matter of fact, provided for by Article 4 without any however, for the Liability Convention caveat as to the possibility of those itself it does not make any distinction tourists somehow infringing national whether the ultimate cause of damage laws? That would seem to be a would be a tourist or not – the state or proposition which many, in particular states qualifying under the well-known non-space-faring, states would not criteria as “launching State” of the particularly agree with – but at any rate, object which caused the damage will be sufficient doubts may be cast on the liable.9 validity of the claim that space tourists As a consequence, just like with respect should enjoy the same international to any other private space activity for legal protection as personnel or which a particular state may be held astronauts under the current treaties liable on the international level, that without further ado, to warrant an effort state simply has to ensure that the to somehow clarify the matter on the relevant tourist activity is subjected to international plane. its jurisdiction and a license including With regard to the flight crew, proper arrangements regarding third however, things would seem to lie less party liabilities and insurance therefor. clear. Both their reasons for going into In other words: it becomes a matter of outer space (professional and being national (space) law and any applicable paid to do a job) and the types of their licensing system part thereof. activities there (guiding the vehicle The only issue on which space tourism, safely in and out of outer space, and in even if de facto and for the time being, the case of orbital tourism, even might be special concerns sub-orbital guiding it around in outer space) are tourism and the craft used therefore. As much closer to those of the 500 or so is well-known, the application of the

20 Liability Convention’s regime hinges the craft at issue would be subject to the on the damage being caused by a ‘ of the state that could have object’.10 While a space object has not registered it – and might prefer other been defined any further by the treaties, legal instruments to make the exercise it is generally perceived as something of any jurisdiction effective. which was at least intended to be It is furthermore with respect to such launched into outer space. space objects – again not defined any As has been discussed abundantly further by the Convention itself – that elsewhere, there is no clear legal the duty of the state of registry arises delimitation of outer space as of yet. under the to This fact opens the door to a discussion establish a national registry and then as to whether flights going up vertically inform the Secretary- to an altitude of at most 120 km – as General, read the Office for Outer Virgin Galactic is currently planning to Space Affairs about such registered do with its SpaceShipTwo vehicles space object on at least a handful of being built – and then immediately parameters offered by the returning would qualify SpaceShipTwo Convention.13 craft as space objects so as to trigger the application of the Liability Convention in case of damage. As will 3. National law issues be seen, this actually transposes the issue to the level of national law. 3.1. Introductory remarks As is the case on many other issues 2.5. The Registration Convention where international space law is not Similar considerations as regards the sufficiently elaborated, as soon as a Liability Convention apply to Article practical need arises for certain states to VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and the deal in legal terms with an issue, Registration Convention11 as its attention automatically should be elaboration, since the definition of a directed towards national legal actions ‘space object’ through the and developments – and space tourism, determination of the ‘launching State’ obviously is no exception. underlies any retention of jurisdiction As has been discussed in many by the state of registry over that space instances elsewhere, the fundamental object and its personnel while in outer basis for the role of national law and space. In other words: if a craft carrying jurisdiction vis-à-vis space activities space tourists (or anything else for that fundamentally derives from three matter) into the outer edge of outer parameters at the international level, space and back would qualify as a which warrant being briefly reiterated ‘space object’, jurisdiction of the state here. of registry could be applied through the Firstly, there is the international workings of Article VIII of the Outer responsibility of a state under Article Space Treaty and Article II(2) of the VI of the Outer Space Treaty for Registration Convention. “national activities in outer space”, and The difference is not really relevant, the related obligation to exercise however, as otherwise basically the “authorization and continuing same amount of jurisdiction could be supervision” over private entities exercised under air law over the craft if involved therein. Secondly, the it would be defined as an aircraft,12 or international liability for damage by even in the absence of such registration space objects also if ultimately caused

21 by private actors, which results for (launching) states as a consequence of 3.2. The United States Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty In the absence of any authoritative and the whole of the Liability guidance on the international level, the Convention, represents at least a strong United States, as the one country so far stimulus for those states to try and actually having had to deal with space exercise jurisdiction over those actors, tourism, by means of the Commercial in order inter alia to deal with Amendments Act of reimbursement and insurance. And 2004 had to deal with the three issues thirdly, Article VIII of the Outer Space referred to. Treaty as further elaborated by the With regard to the craft, the US Registration Convention, as mentioned, authorities decided for SpaceShipOne offers to states a specific, space- to consider it as an experimental oriented tool to exercise some measure aircraft, as it did with respect to its of jurisdiction over a space object – for carrier aircraft White Knight.14 By example for any of the above reasons – contrast, SpaceShipTwo, it is the US as a consequence of registering the authorities’ intention, will be registered space object in question. as a spacecraft, even as the carrier is a In addition, however, to these major more or less normal aircraft and international legal parameters for SpaceShipTwo, like SpaceShipOne, in national legislative action, national law, its return phase will operate as a glider once it starts to deal with space tourism, and will be registered with the Federal also inserts some further parameters in Aviation Administration with a code this case largely stemming from the usually reserved for aircraft.15 It experience in aviation. remains to be seen, of course, to what From this perspective, it may be extent this precedent will be followed concluded that three major issues need by other examples, read other countries, to be dealt with: the craft, the crew, and with a view to the possible formation of the passengers. a rule of customary law, but it is As for the craft, the above discussion obvious that this US example would already to some extent indicates the tend to be followed unless solid reasons need under international law to would tell against that. determine whether the craft used for At the national level, however, the issue space tourism – certainly as long as of the craft has another, more down-to- suborbital and of the SpaceShipTwo- aspects as well: that of mode – constitutes an aircraft or a certification. Though even in aviation space object, or possibly even both. there is little harmonisation as to the This issue in addition however also has contents and detailed procedures for some distinct national law-aspects, as certification of craft – basically, all is will be seen. left to national authorities in that As for the crew and the passengers, in context – at least the principle of respect of both the international aspects certification is well established at the have also been addressed above. Here, international level, leading to an national laws play an even more enormous amount of certification important role than on the issue of the regulation and activity at the national craft, and from the experience of level.16 And, it should be added, in aviation, it is clear that the distinction also at the regional international between crew and craft is much more level, in the context of the Joint perfected. Aviation Authorities (JAA)17 and the

22 newly established European Aviation passenger liability or even an Safety Agency (EASA)18. international convention trying to In this respect it is noteworthy that, harmonise such national regimes along purportedly without any obligation to the lines of the Warsaw system in air do so, Virgin Galactic with regard to its transport.23 SpaceShipTwo craft is looking for Part For the time being, this problem has 25 certification for aircraft in the been pushed forward in that, for United States, without however operations of this nature under the intending to go through all the testing Commercial Space Launch normally required for that purpose.19 Amendments Act, the obligation to The Commercial Space Launch clearly inform passengers of the Amendments Act itself remains silent dangers inherent in a relevant flight was on the issue, but it is likely that in the the sole relevant requirement on this process of updating and amending or issue for obtaining a license under the replacing it this issue will be taken on Act, effectively excluding him from board prominently. claiming any liability as a third party.24 When it comes to the issue of the crew, This would leave intact, barring further the Act is quite specific and defines it provisions to the contrary, the as “any employee of a licensee or application of the existing US regime transferee, or of a contractor or for dealing with third party liability subcontractor of a licensee or including international claims under transferee, who performs activities in the Liability Convention. This regime, the course of that employment directly essentially operating through a relating to the launch, reentry, or other licensing process, is well-known. operation of or in a or In short, it amounts to a licensing reentry vehicle that carries human obligation for launches conducted from beings”.20 The tourists themselves are US territory and/or by US persons or clearly distinguished therefrom, as legal entities abroad, and under anyone on board not being a member of circumstances also by non-US the crew, by means of the term “space companies if a controlling interest flight participants”.21 would be in US hands.25 Included in As to the latter, Mr. Whitehorn, CEO of any license then is the obligation for Virgin Galactic, at his keynote speech the licensee to either insure himself or addressing the ECSL Practitioners’ show “financial responsibility” up to Forum in Paris on March 17, 2006, an amount which is the lowest of the stated that “individual medical risks [of three following: (1) the maximum passengers] now would constitute the probable loss as calculated by the highest ones, not those of equipment or licensing authority; (2) the maximum vehicle failure”.22 Hence, Virgin liability insurance available on the Galactic was developing a policy for its world market at reasonable cost as SpaceShipTwo operations which would determined by the licensing authority; fundamentally exclude only passengers and (3) the amount of US $ with cardiac or coronary weaknesses, as 500,000,000.26 well as those under sixteen years of age. 3.3. The This might still raise some issues As briefly discussed, so far only the regarding potential (passenger) liability, United States has, to any appreciable which may ultimately lead to the extent, drafted legislation dealing with establishment of a national regime on space tourism. That leaves the question

23 open, to what extent other states would, compliance with the international if not from their own national legal obligations of the United Kingdom”, a perspective at least from the license is not required, and in addition international legal perspective, be the UK Secretary of State may waive involved in space tourism, and whether the license obligation “if he is satisfied whatever law is currently in place, that the requirement [of obtaining a would suffice for the moment to deal license] is not necessary to secure with it. compliance with the international The first state coming to mind is obligations of the United Kingdom”.30 obviously United Kingdom, in view of Part of the license obligation finally the fact that Virgin Galactic, the concerns the obligation to indemnify company closest to realizing sub-orbital the UK government in respect of any tourist flights, is still a UK company, international liability claims which the even as the technology is owned by a latter had to submit to, in principle (presumably American) joint daughter comprehensively but in practice likely company of Virgin Galactic and Scaled limited to the amount of obligatory Composites, and the operations, for the insurance coverage.31 time being, will be conducted from US Thus, it seems, the United Kingdom at soil, in the state of New . least in theory seems well equipped Virgin Galactic flights, to the extent with the national legal means to constituting “activities in outer space” exercise control over any space tourism with reference to Article VI of the operations in respect of which it may be Outer Space Treaty, would certainly held responsible or liable on the trigger UK responsibility as a state. It international level. could even be argued that the United Kingdom, by allowing Virgin Galactic 3.4. & flights to go ahead, would come to In regard of other states, it may be qualify as a state that “procures” the pointed out that their possible launch, the notion of ‘procuring a involvement in space tourist operations launch’ never having been seems to be considerably further away, authoritatively defined. This, of course, since the plans concerned are in might entail liability for the United considerably less advanced stages as Kingdom – in this case next to the compared to those of Virgin Galactic. United States, qualifying as a launch The plans coming closest as of yet state already by reason of the launch concern those of , taking place from New Mexico.27 which is involved in projects leading to The United Kingdom has, indeed, a adapted for space tourist national space law28 in place, which flights in the United Arab provides in this regard for a license Emirates/Dubai and/or Singapore. obligation for any body “incorporated Space Adventures itself being a US under the law of any part of the United company, it will be subject to the Kingdom” if it undertakes the launch or aforementioned US legislation, so it is procurement of the launch of a space essentially the other states mentioned object, or operates it, “whether carried which warrant a brief look at this point. on in the United Kingdom or If, indeed, such projects will elsewhere”.29 turn into successful take-off sites for By way of exceptions, if “arrangements space tourist flights, the mere fact that have been made between the United the territory of the United Arab Kingdom and another country to secure Emirates respectively Singapore might

24 be used for such launches would entail objects, as well as control over space possible liability for those two state as flights”.35 launching state – presuming of course, In other words: a non-Russian company in the light of the discussion above, the like Rocketplane does not as such fall craft in question would qualify as a within the licensing obligation provided ‘space object’. for by the Law of the Russian Neither of these two states have any Federation on Space Activities, even specific national space law in place as though such launches may entail of yet, and it remains doubtful whether liability of under the prevailing any existing general piece of law on, international liability regime. for example, the licensing of private The way out here for Russia may be activities, and/or reimbursement provided by another clause in the Law obligations vis-à-vis the government of the Russian Federation on Space would be effective to deal with the Activities, which deals with matter. registration: Article 17(2) namely explicitly provides that the jurisdiction 3.5. The Russian Federation of Russia applies also to Russian- Furthermore, another company registered space objects. This, of Rocketplane plans to offer space trips course, presumes a choice on the part of seem to consider the option of using the Russian government to consider an Russian aircraft as the lower stage aircraft carrier for an upper stage space carrier for the craft which is to enter tourist vehicle to be the launch vehicle into outer space. In that case, not only of a space object in the sense of the Russian aviation law on registration Liability Convention – in order to cater and certification of aircraft may come for any potential liability claims at the into play, but in view of the inherently international level: the circle is resulting character of the carrier aircraft completed here… as the “launch vehicle” also space law- Moreover, it certainly requires a consequences result (once more, of Russian law somehow obliging Russian course, assuming that the upper stage aircraft used for the purpose of craft could be considered a ‘space launching space objects, by object’). Such a character, namely, whomsoever wherever, to be registered would qualify Russia (also) as a as such. In sum, in this case it could be launching state in the context of the deemed rather doubtful whether the Liability Convention.32 Russian authorities have the proper That brings into the picture the national legal tools at hand to deal with the space law which Russia has enacted matter. over a decade ago.33 The Law of the Once the licensing obligation is made Russian Federation on Space Activities to apply, however, the Law of the provides for a licensing obligation for Russian Federation on Space Activities all “organizations and citizens of the does provide for a reimbursement Russian Federation or (…) foreign obligation of the licensee in case of organizations and citizens under the international third party damage claims [territorial] jurisdiction of the Russian to be honored by the Russian Federation”.34 This licensing obligation government, as well as for the ratione materiae applies to space likelihood that such obligation would activities, including “preparation for be without limit.36 Furthermore, launching and launching of space insurance against such an event for the licensee is mandatory, although the

25 maximum amount of obligatory cover at this moment is the only state more or is to be determined by future less immediately confronted with space legislation, which very likely therefore tourist operations. will mean such an amount will be Yet, if we accept the fundamental limited.37 premise that space tourism can contribute to the overall benefits mankind would draw from space and 4. Concluding remarks space activities (for instance by making access to space much cheaper and It is clear that within the scope of the safer) these are important issues for present paper it has not been possible further analysis in the forthcoming even summarily to deal with all years – and not just by American important legal issues – which in itself lawyers, since from the one end US testifies that space tourism is a rather legal developments may have a interesting new phenomenon in space profound impact on any international law if it is, indeed, to stay. This in turn legal developments, and from the other raised the overarching question: is end such developments should not lead (there) space for tourism also in a legal to any unnecessary conflict with the sense? established body of international space The current, summary overview seems law either. In that sense, there is not to answer this question largely in the only space for tourism, but also space affirmative: space tourism certainly is for further discussion. not prohibited by any of the relevant treaties, at least as long as the specific relevant rules and obligations contained therein are complied with. Here, however, the first major issues Endnotes arise. On a number of counts, too little clarity exists as to the precise impact of international space law on this new 1. See ECSL 33 – Special Edition, phenomenon. In turn, this gives rise to Report on the 2006 ECSL the fact of life that those states which Practitioners’ Forum, p. 2. find themselves confronted with relevant space tourist activities will of 2. Commercial Space Launch necessity find their own particular way Amendments Act of 2004, Public Law in dealing with, for example, 108-492, 108th Congress, 23 December certification of craft or liability of 2004, 49 U.S.C.; 118 Stat. 3974. operators. In addition, specific national idiosyncrasies may also creep in. 3. Cf. Sec. 2(b), Commercial Space This is not to say that there is, Launch Amendments Act, sub (14), necessarily, a need right now for any referring to a period of eight years. international convention – history has shown, that such efforts are too often 4. Cf. already Art. II, Treaty on ill-fated and/or extraordinarily slow if Principles Governing the Activities of there is no general consensus on their States in the Exploration and Use of desirability or need. For the time being, Outer Space, including the and moreover, it will be most interesting to Other Celestial Bodies (hereafter Outer closely follow national US law Space Treaty), // developments, since the United States Washington, done 27 ,

26 entered into force 10 ; 610 12. Based on Art. 17, Convention on UNTS 205; TIAS 6347; 18 UST 2410; International Civil Aviation (hereafter UKTS 1968 No. 10; Cmnd. 3198; ATS Chicago Convention), Chicago, done 7 1967 No. 24; 6 ILM 386 (1967). December 1944, entered into force 4 April 1947; 15 UNTS 296; TIAS 1591; 5. Cf. e.g. Artt. III, IV, resp. Art. I, Cmd. 6614; UKTS 1953 No. 8; ATS Outer Space Treaty. 1957 No. 5; ICAO Doc. 7300, as this determines the nationality of aircraft 6. Agreement on the Rescue of based on their registration. Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched 13. See Artt. II(1), IV(1), Registration into Outer Space (hereafter Rescue Convention. Agreement), London/Moscow/ Washington, done 22 April 1968, 14. See ECSL 33 – Special Edition, entered into force 3 December 1968; Report on the 2006 ECSL 672 UNTS 119; TIAS 6599; 19 UST Practitioners’ Forum, p. 2. 7570; UKTS 1969 No. 56; Cmnd. 3786; ATS 1986 No. 8; 7 ILM 151 15. See ECSL 33 – Special Edition, (1968). Report on the 2006 ECSL Practitioners’ Forum, p. 3. 7. Artt. 1-4, Rescue Agreement. 16. Most prominently, Article 31, 8. Convention on International Liability Chicago Convention, provides that for Damage Caused by Space Objects “Every aircraft engaged in (hereafter Liability Convention), international navigation shall be London/Moscow/Washington, done 29 provided with a certificate of March 1972, entered into force 1 airworthiness issued or rendered valid September 1972; 961 UNTS 187; TIAS by the State in which it is registered.” 7762; 24 UST 2389; UKTS 1974 No. 16; Cmnd. 5068; ATS 1975 No. 5; 10 17. The JAA is based on a sui generis ILM 965 (1971). set of legal documents known as the JAA Arrangements, signed in 9. See Artt. I(c), II, III, IV & V, in 1990 by (at the time) ten states. Liability Convention. 18. EASA was established by means of 10. See Artt. II, III, Liability Regulation of the European Parliament Convention. and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and 11. See in particular Artt. I(b), (c), II(2), establishing a European Aviation Convention on Registration of Objects Safety Agency, No. 1592/2002/EC, of Launched into Outer Space (hereafter 15 July 2002; OJ L 240/1 (2002). Registration Convention), , done 14 January 1975, entered into 19. See ECSL 33 – Special Edition, force 15 September 1976; 1023 UNTS Report on the 2006 ECSL 15; TIAS 8480; 28 UST 695; UKTS Practitioners’ Forum, p. 3. 1978 No. 70; Cmnd. 6256; ATS 1986 No. 5; 14 ILM 43 (1975). 20. Sec. 2(b), Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, sub (2).

27

29. Secc. 1, 2(1), 3, Outer Space Act. 21. See Sec. 2(b), Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, sub (17). 30. See Sec. 3(2)(b), resp. (3), Outer Space Act. 22. See ECSL 33 – Special Edition, Report on the 2006 ECSL 31. See Secc. 5(2)(f), 10(1), Outer Practitioners’ Forum, p. 3. Space Act.

23. The Warsaw system consists of a 32. Art. I(d), Liability Convention, great number of partly overlapping includes the “launch vehicle” in the international treaties, ranging from the definition of “space object”. 1929 Warsaw Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 33. Law of the Russian Federation on Relating to International Transportation Space Activities, No. 5663-1, 20 by Air, Warsaw, done 12 October 1929, August 1993, effective 6 October entered into force 13 February 1933; 1993; National Space Legislation of 137 LNTS 11; USTS 876; UKTS 1933 the World, Vol. I (2001), at 101. No. 11; ATS 1963 No. 18) to the 1999 Montreal Convention (Convention for 34. Art. 9(2), Law of the Russian the Unification of Certain Rules for Federation on Space Activities. International Carriage by Air, Montreal, done 28 May 1999, entered into force 4 35. Art. 9(2), Law of the Russian November 2003; ICAO Doc. 9740; 48 Federation on Space Activities. ZLW 326 (1999)). 36. See Art. 30(1) & (2), Law of the 24. See Sec. 2(c)(13), Commercial Russian Federation on Space Space Launch Amendments Act. Activities.

25. See Sec. 70104, Commercial Space 37. See Art. 25(1), Law of the Russian Transportation – Commercial Space Federation on Space Activities. Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101 (1994).

26. See Sec. 70112, Commercial Space Transportation – Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101 (1994).

27. See Art. VII, Outer Space Treaty; Art. I(c)(i), Liability Convention.

28. Outer Space Act, 18 July 1986, 1986 Chapter 38; National Space Legislation of the World, Vol. I (2001), at 293; Space Law – Basic Legal Documents, E.I; 36 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht (1987), at 12.

28